How can an atheist be a freethinker when all of his ideas are from Roman Catholics?

Just a summary

Materialism was popularized by the atomism of Descartes, Galileo and Voltaire-all Jesuit trained men.

Communism was created by the Roman Catholic statesmen Sir Thomas More and perfected by the Jesuits in their Reductions in Paraguay. Abbé Sieyès was most responsible for the French Revolution and he was a Jesuit. Marx was trained by Jesuits in Trier, Germany. The Communists did little but destroyed some of the most powerful enemies of the Vatican with the Bolshevik Revolution.

Salamancan Jesuits like Molina and Juan de Mariana laid the foundations for Libertarianism and the Austrian School of Economics.

According to Masonic historian, Johann Bode, the Jesuits created the Masonic Lodge in England to regain the Stuart throne. Freemasonry has now universally infiltrated the large Protestant denominations and turned them to Liberalism.

The famous Freemason Erasmus Darwin was the primary influence on his grandson’s Darwinism and the transitional fossil hoaxes were created by the famous Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin and men associated with him.

The big bang theory was created by a Jesuit named Georges Lemaître.

Our Gregorian Calendar was even invented by a Jesuit named Christopher Clavius.

Our pandering after international organizations like the United Nations is nothing short of the Vatican’s Ultramontanism that they have been claiming divine right to for centuries.

The banning of the Bible in public schools is nothing short of the Vatican’s Index of Forbidden Books and their incessant ambition to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people. This is exactly what Thomas More burned people alive in England for in the 16th century.

But according to Olivianus, you can't assess the validity of an idea. It is either true because you got it from an "object of knowledge", or it's false because it's not based on one.

What he's failed to realize is that an "object of knowledge" is not a useful source of knowledge to begin with, because you can't ever confirm that what it gives you is true. There is no way to tell whether what the object 'reveals' is accurate or not; internal coherence in "revealed knowledge" could be a deception or an illusion created by the "perpetual change" that an unchanging object is viewed through, much like how a kaleidoscope lens utterly skews images viewed through it. He can't even tell if it's based on an object of knowledge, or something else entirely, yet because he's ruled out any means of checking it, he's locked himself into either accepting it as is, or rejecting it entirely.

You don't know me. I am an atheist, which means I don't believe that there is a god or gods. I decided this when I was 11 years old and at the time I knew nothing of the crap you mentioned. Half a century later I am aware of many ideas from many sources, some of which I adhere to, others of which I reject. None of which have fed my atheism they way you imagine. My mind is not so simple that I think that any one ism can save or ruin the world. It is not so simple that I think the use of big words and heady concepts will excuse any of many voluntarily inhuman beliefs.

I don't need help not believing in a god. I don't need cultural or social or other assistance. I can do it on my own. It is a yes or no proposition, and I can decide the answer without resorting to the tomes and philosophies and knowledge bases you allude to. I, for one, have never tried to put the pseudo in pseudo-intellectual.

I have never read anything by an atheist that someone here or elsewhere has used positively or negative. Not one single thing. I think me and PP spoke about this at ATT. I might agree with some of it, and I may disagree with some of it. Who knows. I came to the conclusion and Ideology I am at based on what RELIGION has taught me. Nothing of what atheism, free-thought, Humanitarism or what is or is not.

Christianity in particular showed me the way which was: away from it.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

The forum again, in obstinancy refuses to look at the problems before them and diverts the issues to me. These recent threads are not about me. They are about you. They are not intended to prove that I have a coherent theory. They are about your theory. You couldn't even touch the problems involved with secularism and now you cannot show how your ideas are free.

The idea that you are freethinkers remains as illusory as the validity of empiricism. Regardless of what I believe, your own principles are smoke and mirrors.

Now, why is that? Why were so many things invented by priests, clergy, friars, etc?Suppose you're a lower/middleclass child in, oh, say the 18th century, and you want to get into a life of science. You could go to university, except that's massively expensive. Books then, how about books? You get a bunch of books and educate yourself, except, books too are expensive, plus where would you find the time to read them, working 12, 14, maybe even 16 hours a day.Becoming a monk/friar/priest ... now there's the ticket. You get a basic education for free! Reading, writing, Latin, maybe French or Italian! You're fed and housed and do some light work in return. You're not a burden on your families finances. And you have oodles of time to read and read and read. Plus, abbots usually saw the value of having well educated monks to rely on. So, as was the case with, for instance, Gregor Mendel, if you're bright enough, you're sent to university after all ... at the expense of the monastery!!! WIN!Quite a few people, throughout the centuries chose a life of religion, precisely because they wanted to do science.

The stock of people available for scientific work while being a monk was further boosted by the practice in many countries that at least one child had to be 'in the church' ... regardless of whether the child eventually selected was particularly religious.Why Catholics? Because Catholicism was for centuries the only available church to get into.

Now, does it matter if an idea is 'Catholic' in origin? For religious ideas it is essential. Transubstantiation is only true when one insists on being Catholic. When you're a Christian, it is true that Jesus is the son of god. When you're a Jew or a Muslim, this is false and the fact that he is a prophet becomes true. However ... science is true[1], regardless of who discovered it. Does a ball fall any less towards the center of the Earth when dropped by a Sikh than by a Copt?

How can an atheist be a freethinker when all of his ideas are from Roman Catholics?

If that were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't matter. Even if we got "all our ideas from Roman Catholics," we, being freethinkers, can discard an idea when it no longer matches our best understanding of reality, derived by testing it against reality.

Materialism was popularized by the atomism of Descartes, Galileo and Voltaire-all Jesuit trained men.

The word "atom" ought to be a clue. "Atomism" comes to us through Greek and Roman philosophy, e.g. Democritus and Lucretius. Not Catholic. Our modern atomic theory was developed by people like Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Leo Slizard, Marie Curie, etc.. How many Catholics in the lot?

Communism was created by the Roman Catholic statesmen Sir Thomas More and perfected by the Jesuits in their Reductions in Paraguay. Abbé Sieyès was most responsible for the French Revolution and he was a Jesuit. Marx was trained by Jesuits in Trier, Germany. The Communists did little but destroyed some of the most powerful enemies of the Vatican with the Bolshevik Revolution.

So Communism was a big Catholic conspiracy? Hahahahahahahaha! And I bet the Pope is an alien--oh, hang on. He does have quite the resemblance to Emperor Palpatine. However, I'm surprised you don't know that the Catholics got their communism from.... *drumroll* ...Jesus! See the fifth chapter of Acts, where it states quite plainly that the early Christians held all things in common. Also: Communism is not an "atheist idea." It's an economic system that has nothing to do with theism or atheism. The Soviet Communists were atheist, but Liberation Theology is Christian Communism.

Salamancan Jesuits like Molina and Juan de Mariana laid the foundations for Libertarianism and the Austrian School of Economics.

So the Catholics were behind both Communism and Capitalism? Those wascally bastards! They're probably behind all world religions and philosophies and atheism and your particular little IdiosynChristianity, and supported the North and the South in the Civil War. Just so they'll end up on top no matter what, right? Never mind that they're spending their resources to fight their own resources, because...oh never mind. It's A Conspiracy! That explains everything, and just ignore that your theory contradicts itself.

According to Masonic historian, Johann Bode, the Jesuits created the Masonic Lodge in England to regain the Stuart throne. Freemasonry has now universally infiltrated the large Protestant denominations and turned them to Liberalism.

Funny, if you go back to the original Illuminati/Mason paranoia, John Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy, you'll find them being accused of seeking to overthrow the French Monarchy, and with it the Catholic Church in France. But the Catholics only conspired against themselves because they're just so friggin' clever. Right?

The famous Freemason Erasmus Darwin was the primary influence on his grandson’s Darwinism and the transitional fossil hoaxes were created by the famous Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin and men associated with him.

The great "influence" that's responsible for the success of Darwinian evolutionary theory is: the geologic column, the fossil record, genetics, morphology, and the entire science of biology. The Catholics must have snuck around and planted it all, carving the Grand Canyon and putting seashells on top of Mt. Everest. Their perfidy knows no bounds!

Based on data discovered by Edwin Hubble. With all sorts of other discoveries and developments of the theory added by...well, pretty much every physicist you could name and lots you can't. How many of 'em are Jesuits?

Our Gregorian Calendar was even invented by a Jesuit named Christopher Clavius.

It wasn't "invented." It was updated because accumulation of small errors caused the Julian Calendar to vary too far from astronomical measurements, such as the solstices. What about the months and the days of the week? June (Juno, Roman goddess), August (Augustus, a title of Roman Emperors), Monday (the Moon) Wednesday (Wotan's Day, for Wotan/Odin, Norse god), Thursday (Thor's Day--Norse god), Friday (Freya's day--Norse Goddess), Saturday (Saturn's Day, Roman god), Sunday (the Sun). Did the Catholics go back in time and invent Roman and Norse Paganism too?

Our pandering after international organizations like the United Nations is nothing short of the Vatican’s Ultramontanism that they have been claiming divine right to for centuries.

So, by being involved with international organizations we're upholding Divine Right (of Kings? But we don't have a King!), yet by upholding Separation of Church and State we're rejecting Divine Right, and when we give the UN the finger and attack a country (e.g. Iraq) unilaterally, we're...what, splitting the difference? The Catholics must be behind all three, cunning fiends that they are!

The banning of the Bible in public schools is nothing short of the Vatican’s Index of Forbidden Books and their incessant ambition to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people. This is exactly what Thomas More burned people alive in England for in the 16th century.

And yet, if we required the Bible in public schools, that would be part of the Catholic Conspiracy too, because it's the Catholics who decided what books went into "the Bible" in the first place! Sorry Oli, you just can't get away from them. I mean, look at your own friggin' avatar! There's probably a priest in your closet right now. Don't think you can catch him though. They invented these things called priest holes, secret escape hatches, so he can slip away before you can get there with your flashlight. But he'll be back.....

How can an atheist be a freethinker when all of his ideas are from Roman Catholics?

The point about free thinking is not allowing other people to be in control of your own thoughts. Somebody who's indoctrinated certainly isn't a freethinker or somebody who's forced to have an opinion because a book tells them to. Many atheists have broken away from that kind of lifestyle and it's probably why so many like to consider themselves 'freethinkers'.

Free thought doesn't necessarily mean 'original' thought, but people are free to agree with ideas that suit them. Yes, a lot of religious folk have contributed to the ideas people have today. But just because smart people believe in God or were indeed Catholic doesn't add validity to their religious beliefs. Funny you mention Galileo, because he was horribly betrayed by the Catholic Church, his ideas were considered unchristian. Many ideas of scientists and philosophers today are considered unchristian, even if the scientist or philosopher are themselves Christian.

Atheists wouldn't be free thinkers if 'not a agreeing with a theist on something' was a prerequisite of being an atheist. Also, not all atheists are freethinkers.

So I fail to see the point you're trying to make.

My ideas can be related to:Buddhism. That one should be a shocker. I am philosophical Buddhist. And Siddartha Gautama himself? Well, he was a Hindu.Immanuel Kant. He was theist...he mentions God in his Critique of Pure Reason.Ludwig Wittgenstein. Once a Jew, but he lost his faith. Science in general.

If I wasn't a freethinker, I might either still be a Christian, or have become a humanist because it's popular amongst atheists...you know, join the crowd. But calling myself a 'philosophical Buddhist', would that suggest lack of free thought as I'd be restricting myself to the teachings of Buddhism? Not at all, I only simply label myself one because I agree with enough of its teachings for it to apply to me. I am not bound to it by any faiths or any need for it to instruct me. However, I am not a communist, nor am I a Marxist. On the political scale I am centre wing but leaning slightly to the left. I believe a society needs the right balance capitalism and socialism to survive and no extreme of one or the other.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

If you check his website, he's working off a list of "57 Theses for the atheist". Everything he's saying comes from it. If he wrote or not is irrelevant. He's just parroting that list. No one here is going to convince him of anything, ever. Just like he's not going to convince us of anything but being full of shit, and a racist (his website is filled with racism, especially against blacks who he advocates violence towards "when necessary").

Y'all are wasting breath, and words.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

Nam: I admit, I was quite disappointed to discover that Oli is just some Southern-fried cornpone Fascist. I was hoping, based on his avatar and his penchant for citing Church Fathers and the like, that he might be one of those Sophisticated Theologianstm we keep hearing so much about. Quite the letdown. That, plus the rank absurdity of his argumentation and the way he doesn't seem to actually know anything about the sources he's citing, e.g. that the Church Fathers were...well...the Church Fathers, i.e., leaders of the Catholic Church. My guess is he probably copypasted his "scholarly" articles from somewhere else and hasn't really read them, much less the original source material they cite.

Nonetheless, dismissing him on account of his racism (when he's arguing for/about something unrelated to it) is an ad hominem. Doesn't make his racist views any less repugnant, but they are not a valid reason to reject his theism or his IdiosynChristian theology. There are plenty of valid reasons though.

If you check his website, he's working off a list of "57 Theses for the atheist". Everything he's saying comes from it. If he wrote or not is irrelevant. He's just parroting that list. No one here is going to convince him of anything, ever. Just like he's not going to convince us of anything but being full of s**t, and a racist (his website is filled with racism, especially against blacks who he advocates violence towards "when necessary").

Y'all are wasting breath, and words.

-Nam

Maybe you're right. I have seen some of his racist content, which suggests he's not a reasonable guy at all and well it just shows how narrow minded an individual is. He would rather spend time judging others before looking in the mirror and judge himself and we can see it here. Well, the reason is there regardless of whether he chooses to listen to it or not. I think a lot of the time we are wasting breath because discussions are often one-sided. I mean, this argument has nothing to do with the validity of anybody's claims, it's an attempt to point to a hypocrisy where there is none. Some of us agree with the ideas of theists...big deal. Being a theist doesn't mean you're stupid and therefore have stupid ideas...though at times talking to some of the people who come our way here make it seem that way.

« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 06:39:11 AM by Seppuku »

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Juts to add to the list of days of the week posted earlier. [ur=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuesdayl]The list excluded Tuesday but that's a Norse god too. Tyr, the god of single combat[/url]. It seems that we have a lot of Norse ideas in our language as well as ideas from Catholics.

Incidentally, I wonder if the Catholic Church stole ideas too. Now, let's think, pontifex maximus a title of the Roman Emperors and, guess what, snaffled by the popes. Transubstantiation is an idea that relies on Aristotelian philosophy (not very Catholic) and the list could go on.

I'd say that whatever atheists may have appropriated as ideas are just as well matched by the ideas the Catholic Church has purloined from other places. Of course, where ideas can be tested and have hence at least to some extent science then such things are true regardless of who discovered them. It is doesn't matter what religion a scientist is if his work can be tested and shown to be true.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Yeah, the fact that his belief system, when you take out all the excessive verbiage, boils down to a form of gnosticism - the senses are corrupt, therefore you can only rely on correct (or in his case, coherent) doctrine - is enough of a reason to reject it. He makes it look fairly impressive by adding all those fancy words to it, but it still fails because it presupposes the conclusion - that the senses are corrupt. If the senses were actually corrupt, we'd have no way to know it in the first place, because we rely on those senses. So it's impossible to test; the problem is that he summarily rejects that the inability to test matters for his belief (because he has this "object of knowledge" which feeds him the things he believes to be true), yet claims that it matters for everything else because they don't have objects of knowledge to begin with.

The thing is, other people don't need such a convoluted thing as an "unchanging object of knowledge that can be perceived through constant change" in order to know things. And that's why he fails. He's trying to sell this complicated belief schema, but very few are even interested in listening, let alone buying into it. And because he's dealing with a bunch of skeptics who check to see if an argument has holes in it, he's getting upset because we're focusing on the flaws in his own arguments, rather than letting his argument stand unchallenged. Reminds me of something I saw elsewhere on the forum, about how close-minded people tend to claim that other people who won't listen to them are being close-minded.

How can an atheist be a freethinker when all of his ideas are from Roman Catholics?

Just a summary .....

Just out of interest, Olivianus - do you regard yourself as a freethinker?

If you DO, I would be interested to see what original thoughts you have, that we can not trace back to someone somewhere who had a similar thought in the past - since you firmly equate "freethinker" with "originality".

If you do NOT regard yourself as a freethinker.....why should we worry about what you have said here? If you aren't a freethinker yourself, what weight should we attach to your eigth-hand recycled "opinions"?

A Jesuit priest is a very queer type of person. He is not a normal priest or monk. He is, if he has taken the fourth vow, a sworn assassin. This order was created by the Vatican to destroy the Protestant Reformation and to destroy the cultural and financial well being of Protestant nations, by infiltration, class warfare, racial liberation theology and if needs be, assassination.

Nonetheless, dismissing him on account of his racism (when he's arguing for/about something unrelated to it) is an ad hominem. Doesn't make his racist views any less repugnant, but they are not a valid reason to reject his theism or his IdiosynChristian theology. There are plenty of valid reasons though.

An ad homonym, yes. But his racism also demonstrates that he is far more susceptible to negative historic influences than we are. Speaking for myself, I'm not using leeches, washing my kids mouth out with soap or otherwise keeping myself mentally in a previous century. A racist has chosen to believe that those in the past were right about white superiority, and in my view that mindset negates all attempts to be otherwise intellectual. By demonstrating that persons inability to think critically. Or usefully.

Also, lumping us together and thinking that we are all equally influenced by obscure historic conditions is far too frickin' general to be of any use in an intellectual exercise. If he wanted to discuss one at a time and provide a timeline of how each has influenced thinking today, we could actually talk about something. But when a list of accusations, universally applied, is pinned on each of us, his fell swoopiness negates any intellectual value this conversation could have.

Added: what Olivanus wants to preserve is a status quo that he thinks is advantageous to his race. Every racist I have ever met as used that argument.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

If that were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't matter. Even if we got "all our ideas from Roman Catholics," we, being freethinkers, can discard an idea when it no longer matches our best understanding of reality, derived by testing it against reality.

>>>And it just so happens that you coincidentally believe the principles that the Jesuit order created, the exact order created to destroy Bible-Believing Countries.

Quote

The word "atom" ought to be a clue. "Atomism" comes to us through Greek and Roman philosophy, e.g. Democritus and Lucretius. Not Catholic.

I did not say that the Jesuits created materialism. I said that they popularized it. They wanted to create a new philosophy in the west to replace Protestantism and Descartes is considered now the Father of Modern Secular Philosophy. It was a philosophy created to have no reference to God.

Quote

So Communism was a big Catholic conspiracy? Hahahahahahahaha! And I bet the Pope is an alien--oh, hang on. He does have quite the resemblance to Emperor Palpatine.

I have the documented proof:

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia admits in its article “Reductions of Paraguay”,

However, I'm surprised you don't know that the Catholics got their communism from.... *drumroll* ...Jesus! See the fifth chapter of Acts, where it states quite plainly that the early Christians held all things in common.

Even if that passage pertained to the state, which it doesn't, Jesus was killed many chapters earlier so he didn't create it.

Quote

Also: Communism is not an "atheist idea." It's an economic system that has nothing to do with theism or atheism. The Soviet Communists were atheist, but Liberation Theology is Christian Communism.

Yes it does. Marx got his ideas of the dialectic from Pre-Socractic Monad Theology via Heraclitus. Communism operates off of universal equality which is denied by Christian theology which sees a monarchy in the Father's Hypostasis.

Quote

So the Catholics were behind both Communism and Capitalism? Those wascally bastards! They're probably behind all world religions and philosophies and atheism and your particular little IdiosynChristianity, and supported the North and the South in the Civil War.

Not all religions, but the reviving of the old paganism was completed by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.Mormonism was definitely created by the Jesuits and I am still working on my theory that the Papacy created Islam. And yes, the Vatican and the Jesuits played both sides of the civil war as they have most western wars in the last couple centuries.

Quote

Just so they'll end up on top no matter what, right? Never mind that they're spending their resources to fight their own resources, because...oh never mind. It's A Conspiracy! That explains everything, and just ignore that your theory contradicts itself.

No it does not. Starting wars between two countries that house your political enemies is a great plan.

Quote

Funny, if you go back to the original Illuminati/Mason paranoia, John Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy, you'll find them being accused of seeking to overthrow the French Monarchy, and with it the Catholic Church in France.

That is right because the Vatican had just suppressed them in 1773, though there were previous informal suppressions. For this Clement was given the poison cup of the order. Whenever there is a good Pope he is assassinated.

Quote

But the Catholics only conspired against themselves because they're just so friggin' clever. Right?

No no. There are warring factions within the Catholic Church. Just read about the Gallicans and the Jansenists. The high level guys are flaming Luciferians (Malachi Martin exposed much of this) who believe nothing of the Catholic religion and could care less about the teachings of Christianity. They use the Roman Religion as a political hustle. Whenever a legitimate Christian comes to power they kill him.

The famous Freemason Erasmus Darwin was the primary influence on his grandson’s Darwinism and the transitional fossil hoaxes were created by the famous Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin and men associated with him.

Quote

The great "influence" that's responsible for the success of Darwinian evolutionary theory is: the geologic column, the fossil record

Your own people admit that Teilhard's fossils were hoaxes. The Piltdown Man was an admitted Hoax. Who was Dawson's accomplice? That's right, Teilhard de Chardin.

Quote

Based on data discovered by Edwin Hubble. With all sorts of other discoveries and developments of the theory added by...well, pretty much every physicist you could name and lots you can't. How many of 'em are Jesuits?

This is a round about way of admitting I'm right. So you admit it? Ok let us move on.

Quote

It wasn't "invented." It was updated because accumulation of small errors caused the Julian Calendar to vary too far from astronomical measurements, such as the solstices. What about the months and the days of the week? June (Juno, Roman goddess), August (Augustus, a title of Roman Emperors), Monday (the Moon) Wednesday (Wotan's Day, for Wotan/Odin, Norse god), Thursday (Thor's Day--Norse god), Friday (Freya's day--Norse Goddess), Saturday (Saturn's Day, Roman god), Sunday (the Sun). Did the Catholics go back in time and invent Roman and Norse Paganism too?

I prefer the Hebrew Lunar calendar. This month was adjusted to keep it seasonally correct. I am no expert on this issue. Nicklas Arthur has studied it quite a bit.

Quote

So, by being involved with international organizations we're upholding Divine Right (of Kings? But we don't have a King!), yet by upholding Separation of Church and State we're rejecting Divine Right, and when we give the UN the finger and attack a country (e.g. Iraq) unilaterally, we're...what, splitting the difference?

No, no no. I never said anything about divine right of kings. If Romanism hates any doctrine it is the divine right of Kings. That doctrine steps on the foot of the Papacy's Civil Authority. You need to study ultramontanism.

The United Nations was designed by Cecil Rhodes and he admitted he got the idea from the Jesuits.

In The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes, edited by W.T. Stead (1902) we read on page 56, when Stead says,

“Mr. Rhodes was more than the founder of a dynasty. He aspired to be the creator of one of those vast semi-religious, quasi-political associations which, like the Society of Jesus, [Jesuits-DS] have played so large a part in the history of the world. To be more strictly accurate, he wished to found an Order as the instrument of the will of the Dynasty, and while he lived he dreamed of being both its Caesar and its Loyola [Jesuit founder-DS] .

Again Stead says on pages 62-63 and this is absolutely astonishing,

“All these wills were framed under the influence of the idea which dominated Mr. Rhodes's imagination. He aimed at the foundation of a Society composed of men of strong convictions and of great wealth, which would do for the unity of the English-speaking race what the Society of Jesus did for the Catholic Church immediately after the Reformation.

The English-speaking race stood to Mr. Rhodes for all that the Catholic Church stood to Ignatius Loyola. Mr. Rhodes saw in the English-speaking race the greatest instrument yet evolved for the progress and elevation of mankind shattered by internal dissensions and reft in twain by the declaration of American Independence, just as the unity of the Church was destroyed by the Protestant Reformation. [Thus the Jesuits would mount Rhodes’ NWO which they inspired in him to begin with to re-assimilate the Holy Roman Empire-DS] Unlike Loyola, who saw that between Protestants and Catholics no union was possible, and who therefore devoted all his energies to enable the Catholics to extirpate their adversaries, Mr. Rhodes believed that it was possible to secure the reunion of the race. Loyola was an out-and-out Romanist. He took sides unhesitatingly with the Pope against the Reformers. The attitude of Mr. Rhodes was altogether different [But the solution was the same-DS]. He was devoted to the old flag, but in his ideas he was American, and in his later years he expressed to me his unhesitating readiness to accept the reunion of the race under the Stars and Stripes if it could not be obtained in any other way.”

Stead says again on pages 64-66,

“Mr. Rhodes's political ideas were thus written out by him in one of the very few long letters which he ever wrote to anyone, just before his departure from Kimberley to Mashonaland in the autumn of 1891. The communication takes the shape of a resume of a long conversation which I had had with him just before he left London for the Cape. Despite a passage which suggests that I should sub-edit it and dress up his ideas, I think the public will prefer to have these rough, hurried, and sometimes ungrammatical notes exactly as Mr. Rhodes scrawled them off rather than to have them supplied with " literary clothing " by anyone else :

[Rhodes’ words-DS] Please remember the key of my idea discussed with you is a Society, copied from the Jesuits as to organisation, the practical solution a differential rate and a copy of the United States Constitution, for that is Home Rule or Federation,

and an organisation to work this out, working in the House of Commons for decentralisation, remembering that an Assembly that is responsible for a fifth of the world has no time to discuss the questions raised by Dr. Tanner or the important matter of Mr. O'Brien's breeches, and that the labour question is an important matter, but that deeper than the labour question is the question of the market for the products of labour, and that, as the local consumption (production) of England can only support about six millions, the balance depends on the trade of the world.

That the world with America in the forefront is devising tariffs to boycott your manufactures, and that this is the supreme question, for I believe that England with fair play should manufacture for the world, and, being a Free Trader, I believe until the world comes to its senses you should declare war I mean a commercial war with those who are trying to boycott your manufactures that is my programme. You might finish the war by union with America and universal peace, I mean after one hundred years, and a secret society organised like Loyola's, supported by the accumulated wealth of those whose aspiration is a desire to do something, and a hideous annoyance created by the difficult question daily placed before their minds as to which of their incompetent relations they should leave their wealth to. You would furnish them with the solution, greatly relieving their minds and turning their ill-gotten or inherited gains to some advantage.”

The United Nations is run more than not by a bunch of Naive wanna be do gooders, but they have failed to see that they are simply setting the stage and the apparatus that will be used by the coming Pope who will incite the next great inquisition.

Quote

And yet, if we required the Bible in public schools, that would be part of the Catholic Conspiracy too, because it's the Catholics who decided what books went into "the Bible" in the first place!

Wrong. The scriptures were recognized and used comprehensively in the Pre-Nicene and Nicene period and later in the fourth century fully canonized. The Roman Bishop is not recognized as rector of the Church until the mid 5th century edict of Theodosius II and of Valentinian III.

Quote

Sorry Oli, you just can't get away from them. I mean, look at your own friggin' avatar!

That is a Greek Orthodox Father and if you do not know about the seething hatred these people have for the Papacy you might be surprised to find out that the Protestant Reformation really did save the world from the dark ages.

Diversion, with the abusive ad hominem. I am not a racist. You are. I want to preserve the races, through general separation you want them destroyed.

Do you support the Union cause in the Civil War?

Your defence reminds me of the British Nationalist Party, they're about defending the rights of whites, they want to preserve their white culture and are not really white supremacists, they're just proud Anglo-Saxons...then they ban black people from their political party, elect an ex-member of the National Front (violent political group who targeted people based on race[1]) who has been known to make racist comments about non-whites. And somehow, there's always a BNP member acting out against somebody on racial grounds. But nope, they're just defending proud white Britons. Not saying you're violent or go out and attack non-whites, but bigots have a habit of rationalising their bigotry so they can ignore the fact what they say and do is bigoted.

Race shouldn't affect how you judge a person, I would prefer doing away with the concept of race, it's only a way of pointing at somebody and labelling them and even treating them differently. I don't give 2 shits as to whether somebody's black or white, or if a white woman dates a black man so long as they're happy together, knowing people in the real world, a relationship isn't about having glorious sex. Every individual on this planet is different, it's stupid to try and group people and make sweeping judgements about them...it's just lazy and often means people are judged unfairly or treated unfairly. I don't care that I'm a white Anglo-Saxon, I've not lost my cultural identity, I am just willing to accept other people's. Well, it'd be equally wrong of me to assume Christians are stupid or believe that the universe was created in 6 days or that gays deserve to die and burn hell, same for non-believers and therefore judge Christians differently. This is why I try to judge people on a per-person basis.

One of your articles rants about women (who are rapacious whores) who like black men simply because they've got a huge penis - you take that further and make it symbolic and it's intriguing you're backing yourself with the bible here...when you're talking about men with the issue of horses and donkey like flesh, despite the fact some donkey flesh can be white, you think of a black man. You rant about the decline of Anglo White civilization. Then you complain about the suffrage of women and seem to suggest that socialism is making white men weak (aren't there a number of black socialists?). Your article was nonsense and shows a distinct lack of understanding of the people you describe and instead you making sweeping judgements about 3 social groups on grounds of race (white women, black men, white men). Yet, by your understanding it is not racism to do so.

White women like black men because they're the embodiment of masculinity and have huge dongs, whilst white men are weak and as 90% of women are whores, the way us white men pleasure them is simply not enough. Yet we've got some pretty feminine black guys out there and some pretty masculine white guys out there, I suspect there's black guys with small penises and white guys with big penises (I get enough spam in my junk mail trying to offer me penis enlargement)...though I tend no to stare when in the men's room so I couldn't really say from experience, perhaps you've looked yourself and conducted a survey with a large sample size with different social groups before coming to that conclusion rather than following the racial stereotype that once you go black you never go back. And really, 90% of women are rapacious whores? They're more interested in lust and sex than a meaningful relationship with somebody they love. What planet are you living on? Granted, there's whorish women out there, just as there's whorish men (interesting you make no reference to them, 'whore' seems really only a term used on women), but there's not as many as you'd like to believe. It would mean statistically speaking most of the women I know are whores, I know some who are dating black guys, obviously, it's all about the dong. Come to think of it, one of those black guys is probably one of the most feminine guys I know. *shrugs*...maybe he did what Michael Jackson did but in reverse.

And so what if a guy isn't masculine? If it makes them happy, it doesn't automatically make them unattractive to girls (or guys if they swing that way), in some case it makes them more attractive. Given your comment about suffrage I take it you're not a fan of women's rights and are also sexist?

Surely a person should be who they want to be and not live up to your expectations of gender or race? Yes, I am a white Anglo-Saxon male and yes I am somewhat feminine, but I am not weak (nor is femininity weak either).

Diversion, with the abusive ad hominem. I am not a racist. You are. I want to preserve the races, through general separation you want them destroyed.

Do you support the Union cause in the Civil War?

Racist bullshit. If this were even slightly true then your website would actually be on ALL THE RACES but it's not. It's on the Whites and the Blacks. Period. People like you give us white Southerners the stigma of always being viewed as being racist pricks when in actuality racist pricks like you are becoming less and less a hold on society but the bad thing is: you still control a lot. Plus, you advocate violence toward others that stand in your way. Tells me you've probably been to a few lynchings or have performed a few in your life. I know people like you, been around them my entire life. And you're full of shit.

And if there is a hell: you're going to it.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

Diversion, with the abusive ad hominem. I am not a racist. You are. I want to preserve the races, through general separation you want them destroyed.

Do you support the Union cause in the Civil War?

So, what do you want to do in order to "preserve the races"?

You didn't answer the question.

I want to have declarations of independence all over the USA. Having declared independence, we need to reserve some states for the blacks (The vast majority of them, not every single one) and re-establish them in those states. Having done this we deport all the illegals from Mexico back to their country to deal with their own problems and fight against their tyrannical government and overcome them with great sacrifice to themselves just like my ancestors had to do with King George. We will give them the correct targets as the Jesuits are behind all of that mess in Mexico.

The post above gives me a great idea. We want theists here so we can debate them? Why not expand the invitation to neo-Nazis, fascists, and other reasonable foks? I'll bet they would be just as interesting. We will be able to see their view points and discuss their rationale, hoping to change their minds... just a bit. If we could change the mind of only one of them, ever so slightly, it would surely be worth reading all of their racist, reactionary, and just plain coo-coo ...opinions? (is that the right word?) No. Not opinions... verbal vomit... That's it.

Diversion, with the abusive ad hominem. I am not a racist. You are. I want to preserve the races, through general separation you want them destroyed.

Do you support the Union cause in the Civil War?

So, what do you want to do in order to "preserve the races"?

You didn't answer the question.

I want to have declarations of independence all over the USA. Having declared independence, we need to reserve some states for the blacks (The vast majority of them, not every single one) and re-establish them in those states. Having done this we deport all the illegals from Mexico back to their country to deal with their own problems and fight against their tyrannical government and overcome them with great sacrifice to themselves just like my ancestors had to do with King George. We will give them the correct targets as the Jesuits are behind all of that mess in Mexico.

It's okay, you've not addressed either of my posts.

But it seems what you're talking about is apartheid. What if the black people you want to deport to a 'black state' don't wanna go? What if they want to stay where they are because they're happy there, what if they like their job? What if they've got white friends and family? But why exactly do we need to segregate blacks and whites? I know you're going to say 'to preserve races', but tell me what is exactly wrong with being mixed race? You know white Anglo-Saxons are actually mixed race, Americans are mixed race and so are the British. The fact we say 'Anglo-Saxon' is a testament to that, it is like saying 'African American', except of course Angles and Saxons were both white. English blood is made up of Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings, Celts, Normans, Romans and so on. But now, we're just the English. Doesn't stop them from being a part of our History or a part of who we are. Americans are just now...well...Americans, what exactly are you trying to preserve? Skin colour? Why's that so important? I don't see it dying any time soon, because not everybody is an interracial couple.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.